Jira DELETE Request

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses default output format (TOON), the option for JSON, the typical 204 No Content response, and includes endpoint examples. It does not mention the potential irreversible nature of deletions or authentication requirements, which would be useful for a destructive tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear sections for output format and common operations. Though moderately long, every section is informative and non-redundant. The numbered list for operations enhances scannability, and the summary sentence is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers output format, specific paths, query params, response status, and provides an API reference. Given that there is no output schema, this is sufficiently complete for a delete tool, which often returns 204 or minimal bodies.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema descriptions are already thorough (100% coverage), and the description adds significant value by giving exact endpoint templates and query parameters for each operation, such as '/rest/api/3/issue/{issueIdOrKey}' and 'deleteSubtasks=true'. This goes well beyond the raw schema and helps the agent construct valid requests.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Delete Jira resources' and lists specific operations (delete issue, comment, worklog, attachment, watcher), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_get, jira_post, etc. The verb 'Delete' and resource examples make the purpose unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides concrete common operations with endpoint patterns, making it clear when to use this tool for various delete tasks. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, though the name and sibling context make this largely implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.